Thomas Sowell, mentioned in an earlier post, wrote a wonderful article, The Fallacy of Redistribution. Sowell’s article concentrates on the practical aspects — redistribution has never achieved its stated goals, and never will. I want to examine the fallacies and hypocrisy inherent in the redistributionist philosophy itself.

In the United States, great wealth has invariable come from someone offering goods and services that others purchased. The Kennedy’s, for example, “allegedly” got their wealth trucking booze in from Canada during Prohibition. Gates got his wealth producing and selling software. Buffet got his wealth as an investment manager. In every case, people purchased what they were producing. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and architects sell their professional services. Even hairdressers and barbers get their money selling their services. The difference is that people value the services of doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers more than they value the services of hairdressers and barbers. If hairdressers and barbers tried to charge the same rates as lawyers and doctors, no-one would purchase their services. (Well, almost no-one.)

Sure, some people inherited their money. So what? If they are stupid, they will spend it all an be broke. It’s not much different from winning the lottery. And isn’t that part of the American Dream — to leave your children better off than you were? Sure. Even the 0bama’s send their daughters to private school. Is that “fair” to the poor kids who cannot afford private school? Well, since 0bama does not support school vouchers, I guess he doesn’t really care about fairness in that regard. But even inherited money was first earned by the person it was inherited from.

So, that money was earned in free exchanges. If you don’t think Microsoft Windows is worth the price Gates wants to charge you, don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese. Do you think the 5-Season set of Babylon 5 CD’s is overpriced? Don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese.

People do not purchase products and services if they think the price is too high. Nor will producers sell at a price they do not consider fair. That is the beauty of free commerce — both sides think they are getting a good deal. Every purchase truly is a win-win scenario.

But along come the redistributionists, who think you were robbed! The man that sold you that widget charged you too much. You were too ignorant and stupid to see it at the time, so you paid too much. Your doctor charges too much, and you are too ignorant and stupid to know it. So the redistributionists have to come in, take some money from the doctor, and give it back to you stupid and ignorant people.

So, if the masses are so stupid and ignorant that they are repeatedly getting overcharged, how can these stupid and ignorant people possibly be trusted with the franchise?

Now, let’s look at the source of the money instead of the sinks. If the people believe that a cause is worthwhile — The Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, the Virginia Association of Free Clinics — they will give their own money to those causes. They will start their own charities. If the people cannot be trusted to make wise decisions of how to donate their time and money, as consumers cannot be trusted to make wise decisions spending their money, how can they possibly be trusted with choosing those who will choose for them how much will be taken from them and what causes to put it to?

Those are the two dilemmas of redistributionism in a republic: the people are too stupid to spend their money wisely, and too stupid to give their money wisely, so how can they be trusted to vote wisely?

1) Not believe in economies of scale. One must believe that consolidation of efforts doesn’t eliminate overhead costs. This flies in the face of everything we know from industry were service deteriorates, but cost goes down after industry consolidation.

2) That a uniform set of social services equally available to all is unimportant. Allowing elderly people with no relatives to suffer and die in squalor is OK because it’s not your relatives and thus not your problem. This is the tribalism mindset of the middle east and africa that produces constant choas and war.

3) Justice is not important; surivial of the fittest is all that matters. God is darwinistic.

4) Success and happiness is measured in economic terms. Relationships beyond one’s family are devalued. Everyone else is lower class (i.e. stupid) and don’t deserve even basic human necessities such as food, shelter and medical care or the opportunity to vote.

Jack, you don’t have to live in a redistribution society. It is completely voluntary. No one places a gun to your head and forces you to participate in the economy. There is no head tax; you choose to pay taxes by choosing to participate in the economy. You could opt out and become totally self suffient living in park lands somewhere. The truth is you recognize that you benefit from the social infrastructure so much that you refuse to walk the talk. You can’t give it up. That doesn’t stop you from using this line of argument to try to grab a bigger share of the redistribution than you deserve for yourself. Your argument is naked selfishness.

It is my impression that the condescension at the core of your philosophy is not going to sell at the ballot box. Who is going to vote for leaders with such distain for other humans? Collaboration is economically more powerful than individuality. That is why we have wealth centered in cities and not in rural areas. Call it redistribution if you want, but if you want more wealth you have to play nice and get along with people. Just think of it as a cost of doing business.

First, I do believe in the economy of scale — up to the point that there is no longer competition. Even the big-government types such as yourself decry monopolies in business. Yet you support the monopoly of government. So we end up with the government equivalent of princess phones from Ma Bell, instead of smart phones from a wide assortment of vendors with innumerable plans to choose from. Yes, large charities are often, but not always, more efficient than small ones. I give to groups as large as Catholic Charities and the United Way on down to the beggars at the intersections. Catholic Charities can do much more by pooling my money with that of others, but it has far more administrative overhead than my giving the beggar on the street a Happy Meal.

We have also seen that government cannot be all-knowing, and a one-size-fits-all solution actually fits no-one. Even 0bama himself recognizes this — having granted the States more leeway in implementing their Welfare work requirements as best fits their particular circumstances.

And the government can set up such programs, and ask people to donate to them. If people think the programs are worthwhile, they will contribute to them willingly. The only reason for TAKING their money is that the redistributionists do not believe people will donate to the “right” programs. They do not trust the people to make the “right’ decisions with their own money.

You exemplify my point about redistributionists quite well. Thank you.

And it is the redistributionists who assume that the elderly who have no children would “suffer and die in squalor” without the government. Again, they assume that these people were too stupid and ignorant to save for their own retirement. They also assume that people will not help others voluntarily. The former are too stupid to save for their retirement, and the latter are too stupid to give properly.

Once again, you exemplify my point about redistributionists quite well. Again, I thank you.

Justice is important. But what do you think is “just”? People make voluntary transactions — a few get rich by providing goods and services that the rest will pay for. What is unjust about that? Injustice occurs when free people make free transactions, only to have the government come in and change the terms of their transaction. You must believe that people pay too much for their goods and services, and thus the wealthy have “ill-gotten gains.” Thus, you must believe that the majority of people are too stupid and ignorant to engage in free transactions without getting overcharged.

God calls on us, as individuals, to help the poor. I challenge you to find one passage in the Bible that requires the government to help the poor. In your ignorance of God you demonstrate a point I made in an earlier post, that redistributionists cannot believe in Almighty God. It is from Almighty God that comes everything we have and everything we are. As such, redistributionists must either deny His existence, or believe that their sense of “justice” and “fairness” is greater than His.

I thank you a third time.

Finally, it is the redistributionists that believe that success and happiness are measured in economic terms. Thus, they must take from those who have those things to give to those who do not. This is an example of transference, wherein one accuses his opponents of doing what he does. We also see this in the next sentence, “[One must believe that] everyone else is lower class (i.e. stupid).” But it is the redistributionists who do this, as we have seen above. They believe that people are too stupid to save for their own retirement, too crass to take care of their own parents, too crass to willingly help the poor. The government must force people to do these things.

Once again I ask you, Special Ed, if people are that stupid, how can you trust them with the franchise?

“Special Ed, if people are that stupid, how can you trust them with the franchise?”
He does not. Every position he takes betrays his totalitarian instincts. He is a anti-freedom statist, who is howling to bring about a dictatorship – a dictatorship of the fair.

Ask him to define fair, and you will get a marxist screed full of venom. He will try to gussy it up in hippie talk, but it is all the same. Theft is theft. Taking money from one by force to and giving it to another is theft.

Theft is hateful. Theft absent hunger is the child of envy. The Ed’s of the world are greedy leeches who do not seek wealth honestly. The seek power, so that they can feed their envy. And crush those who have been successful. Parasites.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jack write: “God calls on us, as individuals, to help the poor. I challenge you to find one passage in the Bible that requires the government to help the poor”

I found dozens of examples where the God of the Old Testament commands the government entities to help the poor and disadvantaged. Here’s a few examples that illustrate that this is not an optional personal commandment but a corporate requirement. Note the requirement to look outside the family and community to help the poor alien who immigrated from another country. This is the exact opposite of what Jack is promoting.

“Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.” Exodus 23:6

“If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.” Leviticus 25:25, 35, 39

“If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien’s clan, he retains the right of redemption.” Leviticus 25:47-48

“At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied.” Deuteronomy 14:28-29

“However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you.” Deuteronomy 15:4

“Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:3-4

“Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court.” Proverbs 22:22

“A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops.” Proverbs 28:3

“Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:9

“This is what the LORD says: For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name.’” Amos 2:6-7

Thank you, Special Ed, once again you prove my point. Every single one of the things specifying how the poor should be treated DIFFERENTLY is directed to individuals. The instructions to those in the government are only to treat the poor EQUALLY.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jacob, taxes are voluntary therefore it cannot be theft.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

The courts are not individuals…it is a governmental institutions. Judges are government workers. The ruler is not an individual but the head of government. The tithe is a tax. The produce that was taxed was for the poor and the government workers (the Levites — the ruling class in the Jewish theocracy.) Maintaining rights is something governments, not individuals do.

You are blind or have a hard heart if you think these passages do not indicate God’s commandments for the Jewish nation to corporately help the poor.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jack reread. The poor was not to be treated equally, but justly. That meant special treatment in some cases to compensate victims for bad effects of evil.

Yes, Special Ed, and the courts are told to treat the poor impartially. Thank you again for proving my point.

The tithe is NOT a tax. The Levites did not come around collecting it.

In fact, one was to take that tithe and consume it ONESELF in a feast to the Lord:

Deuteronomy 14:22-29
22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice. 27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

Only in each third year was that to be given to the Levites instead, who had no land on which to grow their own crops and raise their own livestock.

Now, I do enjoy how you pick your verses. Let’s look at one: “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you.” Deuteronomy 15:4

Artfully deceitful you are, placing a period where there is none. The full sentence is this: “4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.”

And it continues: “6 For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.”

Hmmm… Not really doing that are we? Yes, if everyone followed God’s commands, there would be no poverty in this land.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Taxes are voluntary just like walking into a story is voluntary. As long as you don’t take anything you don’t have to pay. You, however, want to use the financial system without paying taxes to support it.

Is asking for one verse and then rejects all 10 provided because you don’t like the translation’s punctuation count as moving the goal posts?

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Justice comes easily for the rich. Not much for the poor. You don’t need government to help a rich man recover something stolen by a poor man. Ideally treating everyone the same would also be just. But, If you have to choose, justice is more important than equality. Treating everyone equally unjustly is pure evil.

No, Special Ed. You cannot own property without paying taxes. You cannot exchange your home-grown crops for a pair of shoes without being taxed. In fact, the government, via the Interstate Commerce Clause, even claims jurisdiction over your garden. Because you grow your own food, that would, in the aggregate, affect interstate commerce, therefore it falls under Congress’ power to regulate — even if you consume it all yourself or use it to feed your livestock.

Now, Special Ed, you provided NO verses from the Bible which say that the judges should be biased in favor of the poor. They should be treated as everyone else is. Now, tell me, Special Ed, which translation did you use?

Ed you ignorant slut!!!,
“Jacob, taxes are voluntary therefore it cannot be theft.”
LMAO, voluntary taxes?!?!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! *gasp* HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
* cough * Weeew!!! Tat is the lie to end all lies. You lying dog. HA!! Try NOT paying your income taxes and you will find out just how voluntary they are. Try not paying you property taxes and lets see if you are gonna keep the house. Watch what happens. Guys with guns show up, they have badges, and if you do not cooperate, you are in jail or dead.

Written by Had Enough about 4 years ago.

Redistribution of $1.4 billion to the obamas in a year. Taxpayers are oblivious. Now you know why they don’t want to leave 1600.

I don’t know if that includes the wild parties every week or the furniture repairs, replacements, etc. after those parties, but you can be sure nothing came out of their pockets.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

Guys with guns show up, they have badges, and if you do not cooperate, you are in jail or dead

Isn’t is funny (in a not so funny way) how many departments of the federal gov’t have become militarized?

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jacob, then don’t have income or property. You keep insisting on using the social and economic institutions and then claiming you shouldn’t have to pay for them. If you live in the park, forage for food, and get water from the creek, no taxes are involved. You and jack want to have government guaranteed money and commerce protection while claiming that taxes are theft. When you decided to live in a highly advanced society, you chose to pay taxes to pay for the shared resources…that’s the agreement. You can opt out at any time you feel the benefit of civilized society is less than the cost. You might start with dropping the Internet and then convert to Amish. If you still feel overburdened with taxes then give away everything you have and move to Shenandoah National park.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jack, there is bias for the poor since a structure was in place to give free food to the poor who didn’t have land (the rich didn’t get free food.)

The debt forgiveness applied to the poor unequally.

Equality is socialism. We don’t want that as our economic system. (Are you really promoting socialism on this blog?) We want justice surrounding a diversity in which everyone has a different set of talents and circumstances.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

@ Ed

The more forced economic equality there is, the less liberty there will be. The more liberty there is, the less economic equality there will be. It is not perfect, but we choose the latter.

As for the taxes argument, there is another way between accepting high taxes and simply “converting to Amish”. We should go after the obscene amount of fraud, waste and abuse, and cut spending on wasteful projects and gov’t departments (many of which I mentioned are now militarized).

Some of us pay a lot of income taxes on the federal and state level, and then even more in the form of property taxes at the local level. Then we look around and see the gov’t sponsored institutions like the ‘National Endowment for the Arts’ and NPR which both promote causes that run counter to our own values. (For the record, I wouldn’t support either even if they promoted my values) We see that billions of dollars will be spent on a boondoggle (such as the silver line to Ashburn) that many of us will never use – ever! Yet, we will see it in the form of a property tax increase at some point.

We see that some people are out there getting “Obama phones” (and who the heck knows what else) and it makes us angry about the level of taxes and spending considering the check we are forced to write to the feds every quarter (not just every April for some of us). I get so many bills from the feds, the state and the locals that it borders on harassment – and I actually pay them! (How guys like Geitner got away for years without paying income taxes is beyond me!)

And what is the thanks I get? I need to pay more so that more ‘Obama phones’ can be passed out!

Ed, I have a betyter idea, do not have taxes on income or property. The more fair you try to make it ‘equal’ and ‘fair’ you envious SOB, the more we will ressemble the wonder economic that was the Soviet Union.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Gb, you are correct that complaining that taxes are unjust is perfectly acceptable. Just don’t be surprised if others are offended by government using their tax dollars for your favorite projects.

Everyone’s taxes are too high and social benefits too low.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Equality of opportunity not equality in outcome seems to work better at producing justice.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

GB, speaking of fraud and government waste, why no mention here of the trouble this website’s patron political saint is in for allegedly using government resources for personal gain?

Written by BlackOut about 4 years ago.

My accountant sent me an interesting summary of Romney’s tax return.

“The wonderful fall week here was made a little more interesting for a tax geek.

Our little tax world was abuzz onlast Friday afternoon, after the release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax return. He had filed for an extension, (I reviewed all pages, what can I say…I’m curious) and his actual return was (finally) released by his campaign. It’s 379 glorious pages of tax geekery and voyeurism, and there were a few fun facts:

* When all the numbers were run, the Romneys paid a 2011 tax bill of $1.94 million on adjusted gross income of $13.7 million.

* Most of the Romneys’ income came from investment earnings, which generally are taxed at lower rates than ordinary, or wage, income. And all these calculations come to a 2011 effective tax rate for the Romneys of 14.1 percent.

* They donated just under 30% of their income to charity — which is remarkable, no matter what political persuasion you hold to … but here’s the part that has everyone abuzz:

* They only claimed 56% of those charitable deductions that were available to them. So, Romney intentionally overpaid his taxes, obviously to conform to the statements he had previously made about not ever paying less than a 13% tax rate.

Aside from the fact that Romney’s income would make him the 8th-highest-paid player on the New York Yankees, the very interesting question arises: After November 6th, will he amend his return to claim back the $1.77 million in charitable donations that he and and his wife didn’t include on their Schedule A, thereby getting a nice refund check of around $265,616?

If he wins, I’d put that as highly unlikely. But if he doesn’t win … well, I don’t think he accrued his fortune over the years by being dumb. We’ll probably never know, because as a private citizen, he’d be under no obligation to release any of these personal moves.”

Written by BlackOut about 4 years ago.

I think it’s pretty clear why Romney doesn’t want to give up his previous tax returns. He didn’t play the same games as he did in 2011.

Special Ed, I really do appreciate you. You exemplify the wrong-headedness of the statists and redistributionists! This comes mainly of being uneducated. Going back to John Locke, we have the premise that, prior to any government, each man was absolute dictator over his own life, liberty, and property. So why would he join together with other men and give up that absolute authority over his life, liberty, and property? Because they were vulnerable to predation by stronger men, by groups of men, and even by wild beasts and natural disaster. And so man voluntarily gave up some of his life, liberty, and property to make them more secure.

Special Ed and the rest of the statists turn this on it’s head. They believe that Man has no authority over anything without the State. He can have no property without the government. Everything belongs to the government in their minds.

Debt forgiveness applied to all equally. Are the poor more likely to be in debt? Perhaps, but I think not. Just look at the debt Donald Trump amassed. That is how he conducts business. He convinces others to lend him money to invest, and he gives them a fixed return on their investment while he collects the difference. Indeed, most companies carry some debt. Many use debt to balance cash flow. Others use debt for capital improvements.

Equality under the law is not socialism, it is justice. The law should apply to all equally, regardless of one’s financial status. A rich man who murders a poor man should receive the same sentence as a poor man who murders a rich man. There should not be one set of laws for the rich and other for the middle class and poor.

As for equality of opportunity, even 0bama does not believe in that. He is not sending his girls to public school, but he opposes vouchers that would allow the poor children in DC to attend the same private schools his daughters attend.

And I agree with 0bama, too. The point of the American Dream is to give one’s children a leg up in the world. If it were not for my kids, I would go buy a horse farm and get out of this rat race. But I want my kids to get a good education; I want to be self-sufficient in my old age so that I am not a burden to them; I want to help my grandchildren pay for college and buy their first homes; and I want to leave my children and their children with a substantial inheritance.

But in the minds of Special Ed and the other statists and redistributionists, that is an evil thing to do. As such, the government must take all that away from my children and grandchildren, because it would be unfair that their ancestor worked his ass off for them and didn’t spend it all. No, to be fair, it must be taken and given to those whose father’s took the family on vacation every year and bought a new car every three.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

There you go again, Jack. You manipulate the definition of equality to justify injustice…so you benefit (with the help of government) at the expense of others.

Cash management was not invented when God was talking about debt. You are getting desperate in your attempt to redeem the silly notion that God doesn’t want us to collectively care for the poor.

How’s that angry “I’ve got mine and the hell with the rest of you…’cause you are all stupid” attitude working out in getting a majority of voters to collaborate to make your view the law of the land?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 4 years ago.

BlackOut, your accountant is a personal friend of long standing, which is why they include political activism in their newsletter/client reports?

Written by BlackOut about 4 years ago.

Now Barbara, nothing to dispute with what he pointed out from a professional observation? Just a flip that it’s political activism? Romney can easily re-file. We all can, it’s done all the time, and nothing illegal about it.

The intriguing question is, if Romney loses is he and his beautiful wife gonna take a $265,616 vacation?

I think it’s a compelling question and worth getting clarification from Romney on. Heck I guess he could really clear things up if he wasn’t hiding his previous tax returns. Oh well, the cloud will linger regardless.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

Just don’t be surprised if others are offended by government using their tax dollars for your favorite projects

All of my favorite projects are privately funded

GB, speaking of fraud and government waste, why no mention here of the trouble this website’s patron political saint is in for allegedly using government resources for personal gain?

Not sure of what you are referring to, but I don’t believe in crony capitalism on either side.

> There you go again, Jack. You manipulate the definition of equality to justify injustice

Not at all — I qualified the term with the phrase under the law. Equality under the law is justice.

> Cash management was not invented when God was talking about debt.

And you know this how? There were thriving business concerns all over the world. Even in Genesis, Joseph’s brothers went to Egypt to buy food. And they had earlier sold Joseph to a passing slave trader.

> How’s that angry “I’ve got mine and the hell with the rest of you…
> ’cause you are all stupid” attitude working out…

You are the one who thinks people are stupid. You think they are too stupid to save for their own retirement. You think they are so stupid they overpay for everything so the government must come in and return some to them. You think those who do have money are too stupid to wisely donate to charity. I, on the other hand, believe that people CAN do these things, and that they do not need an overbearing government to do it for them.

Since you think people are so stupid, how can you trust them with the franchise?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 4 years ago.

Not addressing the content, BlackOut, but that it is present. From a family member or close friend also providing a service for a fee, fine, because of the personal relationship, if that’s something you two agree on discussing. Just included in formal communication from a service provider as a BTW here’s some politics? Not professional.

You know he just made it up, Barbara, or just copied it from someone who made it up.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

I don’t think voters are stupid. Make your own arguments for why you think they are stupid but don’t be surprised if they stubbornly reject your voting instructions.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Gb, including the military?

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

Gb, including the military?

Yes, I am in favor of cutting military spending. I am not in favor of going abroad in search of monsters to slay or trying to establish democracies in places that clearly do not want it. We spend some 45% of the total global military expenditures because we are trying to maintain an empire across the globe – with dozens of military bases worldwide – instead of taking care of home. Much of this spending is on contracts with military contractors and consultants.

Then WHY do you think they cannot buy something for a fair price? Why do you think the government must take from the person they paid that price, and give some of that price back to the purchasers?

WHY do you think people are incapable of preparing for their retirement? WHY must the government do it for them? WHY do you think children will not take care of their aged parents?

WHY do you think that they are incapable of properly donating to charity to help the poor? WHY do you think the government must come in and take from them to give to the poor?

You are not being consistent, Special Ed. Either the voters are stupid, or they are smart enough to handle those things themselves. I believe the people can handle those things themselves. You believe they are too stupid to do so.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 4 years ago.

I try not to go to the really whacked out prog sites–they’re too weird. I wait until someone like AoS has culled the truly inspirationally bizarre examples, then read the selection.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

I have explained multiple times that economies of scale and a desire for justice dictate that we sometimes work as a community instead of individuals on a problem.

An elderly person with dementia and no living relatives and who has lost their life savings in a 319 scam deserve humane help.

Government doesn’t give to the poor because they are needy, but because it helps everyone. A safety net allows me to take the financial risks of starting a business without concern that if it fails I will be destitute. Relationships between family members are better without the struggles of deciding how much money to take from johnny’s education fund to put into granny’s home health care. Spending less time and money on these issues provides more time for productive work. Granny gets better care and Johnny gets a better education when skilled people provide the service instead of unskilled relatives.

The market is best at setting the price of goods and services. However, we have a lot of shared resources (water, air, etc.) whose usage is not factored into the price of those goods. To keep consumers making informed choices, government may need to regulate industry to make sure the price reflects true cost and that consumers are not being defrauded.

The power of specialization makes Collaboration superior to individualism in economic production. Specialization makes people vulnerable because they are not self sufficient. You need a goldilocks government–one big enough to prevent big business abuse of individuals but not one large enough to abuse individual liberty.

We worry about government abusing free speech rights but now we discover that google is the bigger threat to free speech than the government. Good thing the government controls Internet access so there are fewer barriers to entry for competition to googles speech limitations. Just one example of the balance necessary between institutions in a stable peaceful society.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

A safety net allows me to take the financial risks of starting a business without concern that if it fails I will be destitute.

Ed, when I started my business, I never thought about a “safety net” and the fear of failing drove me to work even harder because … I would have been destitute otherwise. Fear can be a very powerful motivator.

I have seen a lot of people attempt to start businesses and, in my experience, the ones that are the most certain to fail are those that go in with the understanding that they have a “safety net” (be it a full time job, parents, or otherwise). They never have to go “all in” because they have back up.

deciding how much money to take from johnny’s education fund to put into granny’s home health care

As opposed to taking money out of the education fund to pay the IRS bill?

You need a goldilocks government–one big enough to prevent big business abuse of individuals

Ultimately, big business buys influence in big (and entrenched) government to create a crony capitalist situation for themselves. That is not free enterprise. What we really need is a dispersal of power, not a concentration of it. That means term limits to get the entrenched interests out of Washington and to get the feds out of the business of doing business and choosing winners and losers.

Good thing the government controls Internet access so there are fewer barriers to entry for competition to googles speech limitations

Funny thing is that gov’t bureaucrats put pressure on Google to put certain websites and make it more difficult to find certain websites.

> I have explained multiple times that economies of scale and a desire for justice
> dictate that we sometimes work as a community instead of individuals on a problem.

And you are wrong on both counts as they apply to the government. First, if it is done by the United States government (rather than by the States), there is no competition. We get the equivalent of princess phones instead of smart phones. Overhead for government services is higher than for similar services provided by non-profit and even for-profit corporations. Private schools vs. public schools are a good example. The same for private vs. public hospitals.

When disasters strike, people give to the Red Cross, not to the government. They know that the Red Cross will be more efficient than the government. Indeed in doing so, they TAKE money from the government in deducting those donations from their taxable income.

And you still have not provided an adequate definition of “justice.” From what I can see, you think that justice means not having to pay the price of failure. Justice, to you, seems to mean not having to deal with the consequences of one’s mistakes. Justice, to you, takes on the bizarre meaning that there should be one set of laws for the “rich” (however you define “rich”), another for the middle class, and a third for the poor.

My idea of justice is that the LAW is blind to distinctions of class, wealth, race, etc. Indeed, I would favor a system in which the judge and jury do not see the face, or know the name, of the accused. Could there be a question of racial injustice (which there is), when the accused’s race is not known to the judge and jury? If there is still latent racism in the United States, as so many claim, can one named “Trayvon” get a fair chance at justice against a man named “George”?

> Government doesn’t give to the poor because they are needy, but because it helps everyone.

I challenge you to find an instance of such an argument in the Congressional Record.

> A safety net allows me to take the financial risks of starting a business without
> concern that if it fails I will be destitute.

If you have any skills that you could market, then you will just be destitute if you have to sell them through and employer after you fail to sell them yourself. And perhaps the fear of being destitute will make you work a little harder. And where is your family? Where are your friends? Where is your church? Will they not support you? Is your only “community” the government? That is sad.

> Relationships between family members are better without the struggles of deciding how
> much money to take from johnny’s education fund to put into granny’s home health care.

So it is the government’s job to make those decisions for them? Obviously, you disagree with John Stewart Mill, when he wrote in On Liberty:

[The] sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. [The] only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else.

> …government may need to regulate industry…

Which is why we have the Interstate Commerce clause. I am making no argument one way or another on that front. So I will dismiss this your latest attempt to divert the issue away from the topic of government social programs, over which the U.S. government was granted no Power by the States through the Constitution.

Written by Had Enough about 4 years ago.

If You Think What We’ve Been Going Through Is Bad – The Usurper Hell Is Coming!

Numerous financial analysts have been predicting the same, but it’s being ignored. I recently posted information on the QE Infinity which is printing worthless money to buy $40 billion worth of bad mortgages that the banks, etc. have not allowed to hit the market yet.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

The federal government social programs are because they effect interstate commerce.

I want diversified power too. The red cross, using volunteer labor, does a better job than government workers. The government does a better job of having the food and water ready to distribute to disaster victims. Charter schools are more nimble and responsive to parents. Public schools make sure everyone gets a free and appropriate education.

Fundraising is expensive. The PTA earns money at about $2 per hour of time invested. We chock it up to a community bonding event but economically each parent should work an extra hour at their jobs and contribute the money earned instead of fundraising.

Diversified funding for social programs is the same. It takes a lot of costly advertising to raise awareness of a cause and celebrities skew the results. Result, there is too much money for breast cancer research and not enough for testicular cancer.

Government funding private enterprise is the model that is most efficient. Government is very efficient in collecting taxes…and can use competition between individuals, business and civic organizations to get the best value for that funding. A private only model wastes resources collecting money. The government only model wastes money providing the service.

Is liberty lost? Yes. Individualism is lost in the quest for systemic efficiency. But liberty is gained with longer healthier lifespans and more disposable income when the economy operates more efficiently. For most people the trade-off of short-term liberty for long-term liberty is the right choice.

Nice try, Special Ed, but the clause says “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

“Regulate” here means “to make regular,” not “to have absolute power over everything which may even remotely affect commerce between the states. Your thermostat regulates the temperature in your house, but it does not have the power to control your lights, your water heater, your windows, your blinds, and everything else that may affect the temperature of your house.

Now, as to your other matters, I agree, and that is why we have FEMA. FEMA is an excellent example of the “Provide for the General Welfare… of the United States.”

This, and your education argument, are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. FEMA is not a social program, but a program to assist the States in emergency management. As such, FEMA cannot come in until the Governor of the State requests FEMA’s assistance. Education is the purview of the State governments in all cases except DC. When the DC schools are a model for the nation, I will consider the recommendations of the U.S. government for my schools.

Yes, fundraising is expensive. So is tax collection. It is estimated that companies spend more determining their taxes than they actually pay in tax. That is insane, but that is what the country has done to business.

Research funding is another example of your diversionary tactics. First, they go to the General Welfare of the States. No question about it. Second, they are not social programs designed to aid individuals. It is the social programs designed to aid individuals that is the issue at hand.

Government funding private enterprise is rife with fraud and coercion. We have Nancy Pelosi’s husband making millions off defense contracts. Why is the government better at deciding who should get your money than you are? If you believe that, then put all your charitable contributions into the government. But few people do that. Romney gave more to charity last year than EVERY LIBERAL COLLECTIVELY gave to the government. Even the 0bama’s gave to charity, and then DEDUCTED THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS so they could pay LESS to the government! What hypocrisy!

Government is efficient at collecting taxes only because it offloads most of those costs onto individuals and businesses. If those costs are added, I daresay it is less efficient. Indeed, private donations to charity would be more efficient if the charities did not have to prove that they were using the money to the approval of the government, and did not have to provide receipts to donors for tax purposes.

So why not make the government systems voluntary? If you wish to participate in Social Security, you may do so. If not, FICA taxes will not be taken from you, and what your employer pays will also go into your paycheck. Of course, you will get no benefits either. Same for Medicare. Same for donating to charities — allow people to donate, as through the Combined Federal Campaign, on their tax returns.

Do you trust the people with their own money, or don’t you?

Written by Gaius Baltar about 4 years ago.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” – Alexis de Tocqueville (in the early 1800′s)

Taser, stop your bullshit. You are full of radical ideas but they all entail the the general working population give more of their hard earned money to the freeloaders-the government, the single mothers on welfare, the unemployed who will stay that way, the 50% who don’t have any skin in the game, etc. If you want to be so helpful, give ALL YOUR MONEY to those of need by your criteria. Tell all your buddies to do the same. It really bothers me knowing that what I worked to earn will be stolen so that I can support your sorry ass because you don’t understand what the word “risk” means or you refuse to take personal responsibility for your life up to death. There are other countries and governments that will already suit your needs. Go there and quit trying to screw this country up. You are one of the lowest forms of life-a leech, which is a life bloodsucker. Get the picture yet?

Your dollars spent so tens of thousands of fired workers won’t count before the election. How many more are holding off the pink slips until November 7th?

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

In order for a message of smaller government to survive this election cycle you need more votes. You need a coalition. Labeling everyone who isn’t in agreement with you as stupid, bloodsucking thieves isn’t winning partners. I’ve tried out some less divisive messages that will sell to moderates but you (as social conservative stand ins) are stubborn and refuse to consider any legitimacy in messages that are not ideologically pure. You are running out of time and people in the center are not breaking your way. The debates will be about capturing those centrists votes and that means talking about keeping the good parts of obamacare and getting rid of the bad parts…not wholesale repeal. Incremental changes in government that makes society more efficient and our lives happier works but talk of tearing institutions apart and rebuilding them…those arguments work during a crises, not afterwards. You need an October surprise financial crises for Romney to reverse momentum and the best path to that is a set a match to the volatile middle east by having Israel attack Iran. It is morally repugnant to start a war to win an election, but the ends often justify the means for those running to win.

Ed you ignorant slut!,
‘In order for a message of smaller government to survive this election cycle you need more votes’
NO KIDDING CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! DOH!

“Labeling everyone who isn’t in agreement with you as stupid, bloodsucking thieves isn’t winning partners.”
Thats the Obama strategy Dhimwit. Remember? Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, kids to die and (get this) make throwing grandmothers off the cliff a sporting event. Oh and we want all women to die while having an abortion because we want women to spend $9/mo on their own contraception. Why? Because they should be in charge of their own bodies. Nice Democrap talking point you got there son. Any chance you might come up with an original thought for a change?

” I’ve tried out some less divisive messages that will sell to moderates”
Your ‘less divisive’ messages are typically insults aimed at conservatives and as a resident left wing kook of this blog you would not know a moderate if he/she bit you on the ass. Then again, such a wound would cause brain damage in your case.

“The debates will be about capturing those centrists votes”
Wrong again pee brain, they are also about energizing the base. Obama increased the historical turnout of the Democrat base (blacks, hispanics, and youths) and the result was a win for him. Look at the current Obama strategy, “they gonna put you back in chains!” is reaching out to moderates? You’re a liar or a fool or both.

Also, it is amazing how you sound like a left wing pundit looking out for the well being of the Republicans. In short you are so full of sh*t here I’m amazed you can see the keyboard. Actually you are full of sh*t in general.

“that means talking about keeping the good parts of obamacare and getting rid of the bad parts”
There are no good parts you leftist drone. This is boilerplate Democrap talking points, and you actually expect this to pass the smell test? Are you really that stupid, or is this how dumb you think we are? Try something original you hopeless boob.

“Incremental changes in government that makes society more efficient”
More left wing drivel. First off it depends on the change. Second of all the Laffer curve demonstrates that once taxes (and government) go over a certain percentage of GDP, the impact on the economy, and society is negative. Taxes already soak up 26% of GDP, we are well past the knee in the curve.

This is elementary economics, and well understood. That you are ignore this is only more proof that you are a mendacious hack statist who seeks government interference in all facets of our lives. Save this sort of bs for your fellow travelers, you know, buck toothed 5th graders who don’t know !@#$.

“talk of tearing institutions apart and rebuilding them’
LMAO!! A bill that was past three years ago is not an institution you dolt. You really are short bus ‘special’, aint ya.

“those arguments work during a crises, not afterwards”
The Obama presidency is a crisis. Get a clue!

“You need an October surprise financial crises for Romney to reverse momentum ”
You mean the manufactured momentum by oversampling Democrats in the polls to the tune of 12%? Yes. The watercarriers in the 4th estate are working overtime this campaign season. LMAO! Do you even believe your own b*llsh!t? I know! You went to the Debbie Wasserman school of public commentary. I recommend next time you just take the Wasserman test instead, something is corroding your ‘brain’.

Ed you ignorant slut, your post was a monumental waste. Next time, just post the link to the Democrat talking points section at whitehouse dot com or dot org (same thing nowadays). This will spare us the litany of garbage Democrat talking points masquerading as ‘thought’. Seriously, this was one of you worst. Try to be original. That means think for yourself you hapless drone.

Barbara,
Calling dear ol’ Ed a ‘troll’ is not fair to the other trolls. Ed is a special kind of troll. “Why is that Jacob?” you might ask. Well, for one, ED – ignorant slut that he is – is not just trolling, he is actually – based on prior performance – dumb enough to somehow believe half of what he says. Unlike BO – mendacious pri*ck that HE is – who does not believe anything he says himself. If BO tells you he is lying, don’t believe him. At the very least, verify (forego the trust, its rank tomfoolery).

Ed is special, short-bus special. You know, dropped on his head a few times too many by ma? The poor dear is a few beers short of a six pack. He may really think that Obama is not the worst president since Carter, who actually made the grade for the worst of all time. Ed actually thinks that the government is too small. When one realizes that the Federal government is consuming one dollar in four, and not producing anything with that aside from waste products — even a slow cild of limited capability would realize that this is an untenable situation. Ed is clearly oblivious, OR, he too is a mendacious pr*ck, just like BO.

HE – Lockheed totally sold out, the best thing that can happen is that this gets exposed as the improper and probably illegal use of taxpayer’s money.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 4 years ago.

Not if the word DOES get out, as some of the new media are banging on. Imagine being a Lockheed employee in NoVA and knowing your government wants your company to lie to you about whether you’re going to have a job by the end of next month.

Happy Thanksgiving, and MERRRRRRRRRRRY Christmas!

Anyone following Drudge and the tease about the 75% of the formerly edited Obama/Wright sermon that has apparently surfaced?

Written by Had Enough about 4 years ago.

They have been cooking the unemployment numbers for several years. The big jump in jobs created late last year and earlier this year was from the temporary hiring of seasonal tax workers and seasonal holiday workers. Just H&R alone hired approximately 135,000 and there are several other large tax preparing firms (I remember one reporting they hired about 50,000). These temporary jobs do not qualify for unemployment, when they were finished with them after a few months and let them go they were not counted.

If you notice, the department stores announced this week, they they are hiring more temporary holiday workers than usual – another hyped up scam for the Usurper.

Big businesses gift to the Usurper’s campaign.

Written by Ed Myers about 4 years ago.

Jack, you keep choosing government. You could opt out of the material world and convert to Amish or become homeless or enter a religious monastery. Lots of options for never paying taxes again and avoiding the federal government. Since you aren’t walking your talk, we think it is a scam to get a bigger piece of pie than you deserve for yourself.

Jacob, you do the angry white male role so well. For your coronary health I hope Romney wins Virginia. I’d miss the comedy of your joe six pack vitriol: If you don’t have anything enlightening to say, say it louder and add lots of explicative!

Bullshit. Even the Amish are required to pay taxes on the items they barter.

And you are making the “all or nothing” argument. I oppose the aspects of the U.S. government that go beyond the Powers given to it by the Constitution, and you seem to think I oppose having ANY U.S. government, State government, or local government.

You are a troll — intentionally stupid, and intentionally misrepresenting your opponent’s positions.

Let me ask you this, Special Ed: Is there anything you think the U.S. government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to do? What is that, and why does it not have that Power?

Ed you ignorant slut, I am not in the least bit angry when I am dealing with the likes of you. You are a troll. A mendacious peckerwood who deliberately twists everything, understands nothing and more than likely cannot help themselves when is come to being as such. I pity you. I also despise you.

My heart health is excellent. It is libtards such as you who will be in need of medical assistance if the messiah is not reelected, the strain will be more than you could bear.

The morons will probably riot if 0bama loses. But then, they’ll probably riot if he wins, too.

Remember Chicago? They rioted one year when the Bulls lost the championship. Then they rioted the next year when the Bulls won. Liberals will protest and riot for any convenient excuse. Much like Muslims, I suppose.

jacob, tame some of the “name” barbs being thrown at Taser. He can’t help his ignorance (remember the liberal gene) but a few insults should be spared for face-to-face only. That being said, I just hope old Taser doesn’t take anything personal. He can’t help it. What Honey? What do you mean my nose is growing longer again? No, my fingers weren’t crossed!

Written by Jacob Isapussy about 4 years ago.

Jacob, I read the names you assign to everyone and wanted to say that you are a pussy. Your open disdain for people you disagree with supports that you are a pussy. Even ACT senses that you are coming across like a pussy, which is why he is asking you to tone it down. Can you stop being a pussy, please?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 4 years ago.

Jacob, when you say the strain is more than someone could bear, I suddenly flash on Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday.